AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Walter Hinteler,

Thank you, Walter, for bringing a European prospective! I appreciate your input.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, I am kind of tired of it too, but since I still get posts like ci's that implies that my opinions here are totally unsubstantiated, plus disagreed with by most posters here, I perceive the Hitler issue has stirred up more angst here than almost any other issue that I have posted information about, even Georgeob taking exception to my opinions in that regard. Among all the posters here, I believe Georgeob to be one of the most credible. So, I tend to refer back to the Hitler issue because I see it as one that lends itself to common sense vs intelligentsia and perhaps generally accepted historical perception.

One of the reasons I chose the name "okie" was because I figured it would elicit derisive responses from liberals just by virtue of my name alone. But one of my aims or goals for participating on a forum like this was to post really "cut to the chase" common sense opinions based upon good evidence, rather than what often could be characterized as generally accepted, liberally based emotional opinions that the liberal media or academia might hold. Face it, the majority of posters here are more liberal politically, including yourself, and so I am bringing some balance by offering a counter view to your preconceived prejudicial views.

One point about the post you just placed, if in fact unions were outlawed and hundreds were killed in concentration camps, thanks for the correction of my post, but that does not at all conflict with Hitler being a leftist, in fact it only strengthens it even more. Unions were representing their interests, and we already know from the Nazi 25 points that Common Good was to reign supreme, and if it meant people and certain groups would lose their property, their freedom, and even their lives, that was all that mattered. Don't you see, Walter, that the underlying principle of Common Good is what drove Hitler into believing he could do all of that stuff, and clearly there is hardly any other principle that stands for or denotes Leftist philosophies. I am not aware of any Leftists in history that did not believe in the principle of Common Good over Individual Good.

I think trade unions were viewed as important parts to the puzzle in forming movements including the so called working classes hoping to gain more control or place in their economies, and so even Marxists recognize unions as important, but eventually in the course of the struggle, I think unions become dispensable at the foot of the nation state, which is always the ultimate hope of Leftists in their pursuit of social justice. For example, how were unions treated under Stalin, the old Soviet Union, and in other communist regimes, Walter? So as I have said, I think the unions were kind of like training grounds for communists, because the nation state eventually replaces the unions in the power struggle. I believe in fact that Hitler used union members to him gain political power, but typical of leftist regimes, the unions become a sacrificial lamb to the nation state to enforce their leftist policies for the so-called good of all.

Here is some information regarding radical leftists and unions.
http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm
"These principled considerations are posed no less urgently in relation to the trade union question. The trade union question concerns the role of this very old form of proletarian organization in the development of the revolutionary struggles of the working class for socialism. The emergence of the modern proletariat occurred within the context of the historical development of the nation-state. Its organizations, and their activities, took shape within the framework of the national state. This was especially the case in relation to the trade unions, whose advances and prosperity were, to a great extent, dependent upon the industrial and commercial successes of "their" national state. Therefore, just as profound objective causes exist for the ambivalent attitude of the working class toward the national state, so there are deeply-rooted objective reasons for the ambivalence, even hostility, of the trade unions toward socialism. This is a problem over which the socialist movement has shed a great many tears for well over a century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union
"Eventually, all of them were defeated at the 10th Congress of the RCP(b) by the so-called "Platform of the Ten" headed by Lenin, which called for trade unions to educate workers, under the control of the Communist Party. Since these times Lenin's saying, "Trade Unions are a School of Communism" has become an indisputable slogan."

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, You again show your ignorance about labor unions. They are not "liberal" organizations. Both major party members belongs to labor unions. The purpose of labor unions to is to give workers a voice for fair labor practices. This is necessary when business owners treat their workers unfairly, and workers have no way to respond.

It's the only way workers can have a voice in their working conditions, wages, and benefits.

Your knowledge about labor unions is nonexistent.

FACT: Many government workers have union contracts. Members belong to both the democratic and republican party. What's your problem:?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

One point about the post you just placed, if in fact unions were outlawed and hundreds were killed in concentration camps, thanks for the correction of my post, but that does not at all conflict with Hitler being a leftist, in fact it only strengthens it even more. Unions were representing their interests, and we already know from the Nazi 25 points that Common Good was to reign supreme, and if it meant people and certain groups would lose their property, their freedom, and even their lives, that was all that mattered. Don't you see, Walter, that the underlying principle of Common Good is what drove Hitler into believing he could do all of that stuff, and clearly there is hardly any other principle that stands for or denotes Leftist philosophies. I am not aware of any Leftists in history that did not believe in the principle of Common Good over Individual Good.

The unions were outlawed - you even referred to that law a couple of times here, in this very thread.
And that hundreds (actually thousands) were killed (including some dozens from the Christian unions) is a commonly known fact (NB: political opponents to the Nazis were the first to get into those KZ's fromApril 1933 onwards - Socialists, Communists and union members, in this order)

I honestly don't want to respond to any of this "Hitler leftist" stupidities because I've seen the original documents during my researhes and speak German contrary to that Australian physican you mainly use as source.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I realize union members are of all political stripes, ci. I have friends that are union members. I think however that from my observation, most unions are Democratic Party supporters, and this is why I am opposed to unions being able to contribute to campaigns, after all how can they pretend to represent all of their members when they become partisan in their political contributions. Frankly, I think it should be illegal, or at least the members should be given the ability to opt out of the political contribution pool. I have written the same about corporations. How can corporations pretend to represent all of their shareholders when contributions are made, but at least shareholders have more choice of whether to buy a company stock, while most union members are part of a captive audience so to speak.

Contrary to what you say, I am not a babe in the woods regarding labor unions. In fact I have admitted before that I have been prejudiced by a close friend of a relative having him and his family threatened with bodily harm by union thugs many years ago now. I said to myself at the time, I will never belong to a union, I will be my own one man union, and its worked out very well.

2 Replies

@okie,

Yes, they are mostly democratic supporters, because the only time republicans want to swoon with unions is during election time when there are many swing states with unions. That's what I call hypocrisy. Republicans would sell their mother to win an election.

BTW, did you know that Sarah Palin's husband is a union member? Does she speak out against unions or not?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think trade unions were viewed as important parts to the puzzle in forming movements including the so called working classes hoping to gain more control or place in their economies, and so even Marxists recognize unions as important, but eventually in the course of the struggle, I think unions become dispensable at the foot of the nation state, which is always the ultimate hope of Leftists in their pursuit of social justice. For example, how were unions treated under Stalin, the old Soviet Union, and in other communist regimes, Walter? So as I have said, I think the unions were kind of like training grounds for communists, because the nation state eventually replaces the unions in the power struggle.

The unions and their existence etc is guaranteed by our Basic Law (constitution). And that Article (article 9 III) is one of those who can't be changed.
But since our constitution says that "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state." (Article 20 I), you might go on with your slightly potty ideas.

okie wrote:

I believe in fact that Hitler used union members to him gain political power, but typical of leftist regimes, the unions become a sacrificial lamb to the nation state to enforce their leftist policies for the so-called good of all.

It's never good to build one's opinion on one's belief, especially, since it's today so easy to go to the sources (and I mean really 'sources' here, not comments or obscure "findings').

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think however that from my observation, most unions are Democratic Party supporters, and this is why I am opposed to unions being able to contribute to campaigns,... ... ...

okie, we (you) were talking above about unions in Germany pre-1933.
I've tried to explain that unions in Germany (Europe) are totally different to those in the USA.

And especially, they have been so in past-WWI Germany.
But that seems to be a region and time period, you're not very well read at. Otherwise you would understand a little bit more about how and why parties (literally hundreds) were founded around 1918/9 in Germany ...

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

BTW, did you know that Sarah Palin's husband is a union member?

A good illustration of what I just said, ci.

1 Reply

@okie,

But, how can conservatives be against unions, and still participate in it? Don't you get the connection? Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

But, how can conservatives be against unions, and still participate in it? Don't you get the connection? Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

Myself as an example, I do not advocate the elimination of unions. I believe unions have their place and have done positive things, but I also think that certain disciplines or jobs are not appropriate for unions, such as government jobs. I do not believe government employees should have unions, any more than I would think the military should be unionized. At the same time, I recognize that unions have served a good purpose in the past, such as in dangerous and tough industries like coal mining. However even in those industries there is now enough government regulations in place to insure the safety of workers, I believe in right to work laws, such that compulsory union membership should not be required to gain employment. I am not the only one to see that unions has been an important reason why the auto industry is in such dire shape these days.

I could tell you more about my family's first hand experience with a union, which really soured me on unions, but won't go into that now.

1 Reply

@okie,

Oh, so they're not communists after all!

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

How can you say those things when Obama gathered up retreads from the bush and Clinton administrations, the first being a right wing presidency and the second being a centrist administration and when Obama has been nothing but centrist to slightly to the right as president?

Do you want a dictator to make you happy?

(1) Obama has been expanding Bush's federal expenditures with the result that Obama's annual budget deficits are and will be many times larger than Bush's.

(2) Obama has exceeded the powers granted/delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.

PRESIDENT BARACH OBAMA HAS UNLAWFULLY:

Quote:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?fr=altavista&itag=ody&q=REASONS+FOR+IMPEACHING+BARACK+OBAMA+&kgs=0&kls=0
http://www.amorian.org/2009/09/06/the-big-list-of-reasons-to-impeach-barack-obama/

(1) taken private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it, and given it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

(2) exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law.”

(3) interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

(4) interfered with the economic rights of the people by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts.

(5) attempted to change our fundamental economic system from one governed by the rule of law to one governed by presidential dictate.

(6) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that is not authorized by any power of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, not even by a very expansive reading of the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

(7) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that violates the Tenth Amendment by requiring state governments to force their citizens to purchase medical insurance they do not want to purchase.

(8) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that violates the Ninth Amendment by forcing state governments to force their citizens to be denied rights that are retained by the people.

(9) used public money to purchase private companies.

(10) given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.

(11) violated the balance of powers among the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Presidency by appointing, without congressional approval, so called Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.

(12) funded his election campaign with foreign contributions.

(13) permitted the justice department to implement a policy to not prosecute any civil rights or voting rights violations if perpetrated by a black or blacks against a white or whites.

(3) Obama's Performance:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year.......FEDERAL OUTLAYS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980.......$0.591 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$1.064 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$1,.382 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$1.789 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$2,931 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$3,399 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………FEDERAL DEFICITS
1980.......$0.074 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$0.155 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$0.291 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......SURPLUS $0.236 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$0.410 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$0.160 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.909 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.601 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$4.002 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$5.629 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$9.654 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$10.954 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

How can you say those things when Obama gathered up retreads from the bush and Clinton administrations, the first being a right wing presidency and the second being a centrist administration and when Obama has been nothing but centrist to slightly to the right as president?

Do you want a dictator to make you happy?

I can say those things because they are my true expectations.

We already have a budding dictator who disregards the USA's rule of law whenever it suits him. His name is Barach Obama.

I love the USA's rule of law. I hate those who have bypassed it, who are bypassing it, and who are seeking to bypass it.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

You can't spell the President's name. Gosh, start using Baruch Obama.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

The correct spelling, Barack Obama, is too much like Barrack Obama, which would be a particular "housing characterized by extreme plainness or dreary uniformity" named Obama.

Thus, my wrong spelling clearly distinguishes Barack Obama from a dreary uniform building, a barrack, named Obama.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I love the USA's rule of law. I hate those who have bypassed it, who are bypassing it, and who are seeking to bypass it.

In regard to the rule of law, this could be good news, the DOJ internal watchdog is going to investigate Obama's DOJ for not enforcing civil rights laws in regard to the New Black Panthers intimidating voters in the last presidential election. The question here is whether Obama interfered with the DOJ and purposely blocked enforcement of laws in some cases, ican, which if true might be grounds for impeachment as you have been beating the drum for.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/13/dojs-internal-watchdog-announces-investigation-civil-rights-enforcement

"For more than a year, Republicans and others have been questioning why the Obama administration reversed course on a federal lawsuit against two members of the New Black Panther Party, who were videotaped outside a Philadelphia polling station on Election Day 2008. The two were dressed in military-style uniforms, and one was holding a nightstick. The issue escalated in June when a former Justice Department attorney, J. Christiam Adams, alleged it was all part of an Obama administration policy to avoid prosecuting minorities, an allegation the Justice Department has strongly denied."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

So you intentionally mis-spell his name.

0 Replies

@okie,

How many times did GWB break the law? He sent National Guards to Iraq and deserted his post during the Vietnam when he was with the National Guards.

2 Replies

@talk72000,

Maybe you never heard that Dan Rather's national guard story was bogus, it was with forged documents, for which the responsible party was never tracked down and prosecuted. That was a federal offense by the way, which the DOJ never pursued, something else that should be investigated in my opinion.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know